Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LE Federal Carry Law

Discussion in 'Legal' started by usmarine0352_2005, Dec 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,797
    .
    Didn't President Bush sign into law a law that says active police officers can carry off-duty in any state and retired officers can do the same as long as they renew their license every year?


    I thought this happened, but then an officer at Sturgis shot a biker and now he's being charged with murder and the carry of his pistol. (Not sure about all of the facts.)


    Does anyone know about these two things?


    .
     
  2. damien

    damien Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    Northern IL, USA
    Last I heard they had to drop the weapons charge precisely because of this law. The prosecutor was not familiar with it because it is a newer law. There are some limitations, surely someone will chime in with the particulars.
     
  3. Rob62

    Rob62 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    620
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
  4. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,709
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    The weapons charges against the three off duty officers, (Iron Pigs motorcycle club), were dropped due to this act, but the firefighter that was with them is hosed. No pun intended.
     
  5. divemedic

    divemedic Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,462
    Location:
    30 minute drive from Disney World
    The funny thing is that LEOSA bans police carry while under the influence. I find it a stretch to think the cops in the biker bar were drinking Evian.
     
  6. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    Didn't President Bush sign into law a law that says active police officers can carry off-duty in any state and retired officers can do the same as long as they renew their license every year?
    It's known as the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. Signed into law on July 22, 2004. It grants active LEOs the right to carry concealed anywhere in the US, territories and possessions. Retired LEOs have to meet certain guildlines one of which is qualify each year.

    I thought this happened, but then an officer at Sturgis shot a biker and now he's being charged with murder and the carry of his pistol. (Not sure about all of the facts.)
    He wasn't charged with murder because the Hell's Angel didn't die. The LEOs were from the Seattle area along with some firement. Things got heated and the end result was one of the Seattle LEOs shot one of the HAs. As another mentioned the LEOs and fireman were charged by the prosecutor based on the prosecutor's statement that SD law prohibits carrying a firearm in a bar. However, LEOSA exempts LEOs from all state laws except where a private person/entity can prohibit carrying on their property and the government can prohibit carrying on government property. LEOSA is very clear that a government agency can only prohibit on government property, cannot prohibit on private property, only the owner can. The charges were dismissed against the LEOs because they were covered under LEOSA the way the charges were written, ie, the state cannot prohibit LEOs from carrying on private property. The fireman has made the claim that he too is protected by LEOSA altho where he comes up with that claim isn't reflected in the statute as he is not a LEO.
     
  7. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,797
    However, LEOSA exempts LEOs from all state laws except where a private person/entity can prohibit carrying on their property and the government can prohibit carrying on government property.


    ie, the state cannot prohibit LEOs from carrying on private property.




    Don't these contradict each other?



    So, all charges were dropped against the officers?


    How long ago was this, and do you have a source?

    I wanted to show it to someone.

    .
     
  8. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    No. The government only has the right to prohibit carrying on government property and cannot restrict carrying on private property. Only the property owner can restrict carrying on their own property.

    Correct.

    The incident occurred the first week of August this year at the Sturgis Bike Week. The charges were just dropped this past week.
    Do a websearch of it for the Rapid City newspaper. It's been covered there, by the FOP on the web, and several other LE sources on the web.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2008
  9. rscalzo

    rscalzo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    Epping, NH
    There is no "license". Only a departmental ID is required. satisfaction to the departental statards or the standards of the current state of residence must be met.

    The legislation simply states the laws requiring a concealed carry permit are waived. No other benefits are associated with the law.

    In Sturgis the charges were filed because of a supposed violation of state law. Those charged were dropped last week.

    That is incorrect. When out of state you have no police powers and as such are a private peoson. All state laws as to prohitied places, magazine capacity are in force. For example, in NJ HP cannot be carried by an out of state police officer. While this might be changed, at this time that is the law.
     
  10. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    Nothing was ever said about mag capacity. LEOSA only addresses concealed carry. You are correct about mag capacity and HP restrictions but that is not the issue and is not addressed by LEOSA.
    You should read LEOSA again. It is very clear who and what places can be restricted. The info I gave is correct. The government can only restrict carrying on goverment property. Only private individuals may restrict carrying on their property.
    State laws as to prohibited places are exempt because of LEOSA. That's the entire purpose of LEOSA. Think about it. In IL state law prohibits carrying concealed. LEOSA exempts all those state laws and allows concealed carry. That is the purpose of LEOSA.
    In case you haven't read LEOSA or haven't read it closely here are the only restrictions:
    " b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
    (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property;
    or
    (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."
    Read carefully. It is very specific. No where does it give the states the right to prohibit carrying on private property. That is the issue addressed with the Sturgis, SD shooting. The prosecutor charged because state law prohibited carrying in bars. The judge read LEOSA and clearly understood it as written. This has been explained ad nauseam since LEOSA became law.
    1) says individuals can prohibit carrying on their property.
    2) says government can prohibit carrying on goverment property.
    Those are the only 2 restrictions. LEOSA is also very clear in the very first sentence of the statute "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof,". Meaning, "inspite of any law of any state...." or in otherwords federal law preempts all state laws prohibiting the carrying concealed by LEOs and qualified retired LEOs.
     
  11. rscalzo

    rscalzo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    Epping, NH
    I don't know where you are getting your information but it is totally offbase. The LEOSA gives LE, retired or current after additional rights out of stae beyond the requirement to obtain a concealed carry permit.

    It does not allow carry into a location prohibited by a citizen (such as an establishment that serves alcohol).

    Private property owners stated that they do not allow carry on their property will allpy to those coming under the LEOSA carry. Some states consider it a crime in itself. Some will only act when the individual refuses to leave when asked which would simply involve at best a Trespass charge.

    Magazine capacity is limited in some states. Out of state LE cannot carry over ten rounds in MA and over 15 in NJ. In NJ hp ammo is not permitted (in concealed carry instances) by anyone outside of NJ LE.

    The LEOSA also places additional restrictions such as a prohibitation while under the influence. It also requires qualification in states that do not require those actions.

    If you are LE, I would suggest contacting your state union rep for the guidelines. Way too many seem to think they retain the rights afforded when in their home state during travel out of state.
     
  12. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,816
    LEOSA does not circumvent each state's restrictions placed on thier own CCW permit holders. In the state of WV, for instance, you can not carry on school grounds with a CCW permit and I also can not under LEOSA. In the case above SD does not allow carry in bars for CCW holders so the officer would also not be allowed to carry. If he was under the influence LEOSA would have also been nullified by that also.
     
  13. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    I guess you haven't read the statute.
    I was on the statewide committee where we did extensive research of the statute and talked to the Congressmen who wrote it. The committee was comprised of representatives of the USA's office, the IL AG's office and the IL State Police. It was our job to research the statute prior to IL implementing our requirements. So yeah, I have quite a bit of experience and research in LEOSA.
    You're not disagreeing with me on most of the points except one. If you read the statute closely what I posted then you'll find the only 2 situations where carry locations can be restricted - government buildings, etc and private entities can prohibit on their property. That's it. (1) and (2) quoted previously.

    Correct, no one has said differently.

    Reread the statute. Tell us where it says such.
    I'll help you out - it doesn't. The only time that restriction would be in effect is if the owner of the establishment posted such limits, not the state. Reread LEOSA again. It's very clear. Unless the business that serves the alcohol is owned by the government then the government cannot prohibit carrying there. That's made very clear in the statute and restated by the trial judge in SD.

    That is correct. That is b)(1) that I quoted from the statute. Now, read b)(2). What's it say?

    Why are you even bringing up mag capacity? It is not addressed by LEOSA. LEOSA does not give any exemption to mag capacity or HP ammo. You're confusing issues and yourself. LEOSA doesn't address nor exempt either. LEOSA is about concealed carry.

    That is correct. However, that is not a limitation on where you can carry as a LEO/retired LEO, only a limitation on your physical condition which would prevent carrying. If you are under the influence it doesn't matter where you're at, can't carry under LEOSA.

    Once again, no one said differently.
    The only point where you're "off base" is thinking the state can regulate restrictions other than government property. LEOSA is clear where the government can restrict carry and that is limited to "government property, installation, building, base, or park."
    Using your reasoning then you as a LEO/retired LEO could not carry in IL because IL law prohibits carrying concealed weapons. Clearly that is not the case. LEOSA preempts state statutes in that regard. That's the purpose of LEOSA to preempt state laws to allow LEOs/retired LEOs the right to CCW in all states.
     
  14. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    Why do you think that is? Read (b)(2). School = Government building.
    Don't try reading more into LEOSA than what is written. You're confusing yourself.

    You need to read the judge's ruling. That's exactly why the charges were dropped. SD state law says can't carry in a bar. The judge read b)(2) and understood what it says. He even used the example that if the government owned the bar then it could make the restriction but since the bar is not government property then b)(2) applies, ergo, the officers involved in the SD shooting were covered under LEOSA.

    Entirely different issue and I agree. But it doesn't matter if a LEO is under the influence and standing in the middle of a field then he would not be covered under LEOSA because of (b)(5), not because he's in a bar or on government property. It's a completely separate issue.
     
  15. david_the_greek

    david_the_greek Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    533
    ... ok, quickie question. Would this apply to reserve officers?
     
  16. rscalzo

    rscalzo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    Epping, NH
    While a SD judge may have made that ruling, it misn't going to be binding in other states. I would not want to base my freedomn on a non-binding ruling.

    Having gone through the same reviews in NJ, I understand the restridctions and the fact that are still many gray areas. I had a somewhat long discussion a few weeks back with the staff of Sig Academy. They and the academy itself cannot get answers to their questions which is the sole reason they have not implimented a planned LEOSA Qualification Course.

    The bottom line is that no one, from the top down has all the answers on this legislation.
     
  17. franconialocal

    franconialocal Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Hit the nail on the head

    Well.....what I see happening on this forum is exactly what is happening in "real life" about this exact issue. It's still just a confusing mess for everyone involved. My Dad (retired Chief PPO) is getting the run-around and being an LEO myself I'm still very wary about the whole topic.
     
  18. Rob62

    Rob62 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    620
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    For those that have not read and choose to do so. I have previously linked to a copy of the law. Here is further information:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_En...y_Act#Scope_of_privilege_conferred_by_the_law

    There are several other links at the bottom of the Wiki page with even more information.

    I recommend that any LEO's, specially those that are eventually planning on retiring from their agency read this important information.

    Rob
     
  19. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    It depends. What is a reserve officer in your area? In IL a reserve can be anything from a position similar to an Explorer scout to a part time officer. It depends on how the sheriff wants to classify them and their duties.
    The question would be do they meet the standards outlined by LEOSA. Some reserves do, some don't.

    That's a given. No argument. However, if you read LEOSA you'll find the ruling was exactly what we were told discussing it with Cunningham's people and the AG in 2004. LEOSA is very simple in this regard and clearly spells it out. People tend to make it more difficult than it really is. While there is often the discussion as to who is covered under LEOSA the restrictions of when and who can implement restrictions is very clear. What makes it confusing to some is when they start trying to interject their own opinions like does HP ammo apply or does the mag limits apply. Those are not issues addressed by LEOSA. LEOSA only addresses CCW and has nothing to do with the other. It's when people start interjecting their personal opinions about "LEOs have to comply with the state's CCW restrictions" that shows they don't have a grasp of LEOSA. If they thought about it a bit deeper than many are capable of doing then they'd realize that doesn't water. Taking their opinion further would show that LEOs wouldn't be able to carry in IL or WI since there is no CCW in those states. Clearly, that is not the case and it clearly the intent of LEOSA to prohibit those exclusions.
    It's amazing that cops who spend their careers enforcing the laws are often the very ones incapable of reading a statute and understanding it without interjecting their personal interpretation that isn't in the statute.

    That's why we went to the people who wrote it. That's where legislative intent comes into play.
     
  20. Frog48

    Frog48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Somewhere down in Texas
    Drinking =/= drunk. Having a beer or two is not necessarily the same as having 10 beers and getting hammered.

    With that said, having any alcohol while carrying a firearm is generally not a good idea.
     
  21. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,816
    I stand corrected, rudely corrected, but corrected nonetheless.

    I swear there was additional language about restrictions in the bill but we have received so much contradictory guidance from my agency its ridiculous. The Attorney General finally stepped in in 2005 and slapped their wrist and told them to stop it.
     
  22. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    Just pointing out the obvious. It's only been law for over 4 yrs and still people are reading their own interpretation without ever reading and understanding the statute and interjecting limits that aren't in the statute. People read more into the statute than what's there, if they read the statute at all. LEOs are some of the worst for doing that. They also are some of the worst for not thinking it thru. Deep thought and reasoning is a rarity for some and an impossibility for some others. For example I can't count the number of LEOs who say LEOSA doesn't preempt state law and that LEOs must comply with the state's CCW restrictions. They don't think about it. If LEOSA didn't preempt state law then what does it do? That's what LEOSA does and that's the intent of it, to preempt state laws concerning CCW. Otherwise a LEO from any state wouldn't be allowed to carry in any other state that restricts CCW.
     
  23. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    Here is a *fun* question for consideration based on the progression of this thread thus far (and yes, I'm looking for isp2605 or even Mr. White to respond in particular because I would value their professional opinion):

    Can IDOC Correctional Officers carry concealed under the LEOSA?

    Now, of course, the IDOC policy is that they may not carry off duty without 'special' say so from the department.

    While not police officers, Illinois Department of Corrections Officers;

    -are sworn officers (Conservators of the Peace) with full legal authority of 'Peace Officers' with regards to those offenders under their custody and care and full arrest powers for re-taking escapees. They regularly escort offenders in public while armed and stand details while armed at correctional facilities.

    -qualify yearly and are authorized to carry firearms for duty as required.

    -are issued badges, photo ID, and weapons qualification credentials by the department.




    My bet is, that *outside* of Illinois the answer would be easy----but in Illinois a number of somewhat pre-conceived ideas and notions-- may come into play. So thanks in advance for your consideration for anyone who chimes in on this (I have researched the issue somewhat, and from what I can gather---the IDOC itself REALLY isn't too sure and seems to hope the 'problem' doesn't come up in a serious way).

    Thanks in Advance,

    Mike
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2008
  24. Dday

    Dday Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Seems to me that this is just another example of how FU'd our laws are. Why should we even need a law giving retired officers the right to carry? This shouldn't be necessary because there never should have been any challenge to a retired officer's right to carry. Of course in the Peoples Repubik of the US (the nation that we've become since the 60's) the mere fact that this law became necessary is indicitave of how poluted the minds of leftist-liberal law makers are. I just can't understand how the lefties, who claim to be in favor of equal rights for all, are so hell-bent on eliminating our 2A rights. Could it be they don't trust an armed citizenry?
     
  25. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    This was run past the IL AG and USA back in 2004. IDOC officers are not LEOs and therefore not covered by LEOSA. Their "arrest" power is really not arrest but taking escapees back into custody. However, some positions with IDOC are considered LEOs but those are not the usual correctional officers.
    There were 111 different positions in state government where people were authorized to carry firearms, issued badges, conducted investigations of some type and presented cases to obtain charges. However, most of those are not LEOs. For example, Dept of Ag Meat Inspectors. Some of them met all of those but they aren't LEOs, they're meat inspectors.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page